Croskey involved in patent dispute

OUR JOHN WAS TOO SLOW.

From the following it appears that our good friend John H. Croskey, the bright, alert and versatile master mold maker of the United States Glass Co., whose head can evolve inventions faster than his financial ability sometimes enables him to protect them by patents, has reason to think that while Patrick Henry may have been right in claiming that "the race is not always to the swift," patents sometimes are awarded, not to the inventor, but to the most "diligent;" and that a man may have his head full of wheels, steam presses and blowing machines, as still get left by those who have superior "buisness" qualifications.

The Court of Appeals, Washington, affirmed the judgement of the lower court in the case of John H. Croskey, appellant, vs. Thomas B. Atterbury. This was an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, in a proceeding awarding priority of invention to the appellee of an improvement in the process of manufacturing hollow-glass ware. Atterbury filed his application October 1, 1892, and the appellant filed his on December 28, 1893. Croskey claimed conception of invention and the making of drawings in August, 1889, disclosure to others in July, 1890, and the actual reduction to practice in October, 1892. The Commisssioner found the earliest date of drawings and disclosure to others to be December 15, 1890. Appellants counsel contended the evidence in behalf of the appellee was insufficient to prove that he at any time conceived the invention. The appellee claimed actual reduction to practice October 1, 1892. In deciding the case the Court of Appeals says that "appellant, though the first to conceive, by his neglect lost his inchoate riught in the invention af appellee, who conceived later, while appellant was lacking in due dilligence, and promptly reduced his conception to practice before appellant did."